Control of sensitive communications traffic, files, and other content is a well-known problem. There are many products that address a portion of the problem. A completely secure, fully extensible solution is not known and may never be available. This is due to photographic, paper copy, word-of-mouth, and other difficult-to-control information distribution mechanisms.
Virtual Private Networks (“VPN”) provide communications among a restricted group via a logical overlay on top of an existing network. Tunnels, or secure links between nodes of the VPN, are created through the underlying network. While VPNs can make use of authentication and encryption, such features are not a mandatory part of such a system.
Two major variations on the VPN theme exist. A “Secure VPN” limits access to communications among the restricted group with positive authentication and file encryption using such protocols as Internet Protocol Security (“IPSec”), Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (“PPTP”), and Secure Sockets Layer (“SSL”). Secure VPNs are the defacto standard for off-site communications for enterprises and other organizations who need security features while using the Internet. The other form of VPN is the “Trusted VPN”, which typically guarantees a certain Quality of Service (“QoS”). Protocols for trusted VPNs include, but are not limited to Asynchronous Transfer Mode (“ATM”), Frame Relay, and MultiProtocol Label Switching (“MPLS”). Secure VPNs do not address communication and attachment distribution, access control, use, tracking, controlled external release of certain information, or timed distribution with consideration of other temporal events. Secure VPNs do not extend easily to parties outside of the VPN trust circle (external to the firewall) without incurring additional security risks. VPNs do not consider the nature of threats or information leaks that are specific to, and unique among, certain modes or media of communications. Further, VPNs do not apply to all forms of communications.
Document control systems seek to provide a single source document depository with change management and version control. Some of the documents are available only to a controlled audience within an enterprise firewall, while others are available to all enterprise business associates, and still others may be publicly available. Such a system helps substantially with documentation compliance issues, but falls short of helping with the overall control of sensitive communications traffic and content within a controlled group because it is not extensible to communications traffic. Further, there is no tracking of documents once copied from the document control system.
There are companies dedicated to Data Loss Protection (“DLP”), like Sophos (Ultimaco). Sophos offers an enterprise wide security system called SafeGuard Enterprise 5.40™ featuring DLP, device encryption (including removable media), data exchange, configuration protection, partner connection capabilities, file sharing, and remote worker encrypted data access and sharing, all configured around a centralized management center hub that can do role-based policy enforcement, centralized management, and data reporting. Sophos also offers LANCrypt™ that allows the extension of confidential data protection to file servers and network shares. Sophos offers these capabilities by loading software on mobile and stationary devices and running encryption on all files contained on such devices. Therefore, it is essentially an end-point or device-based data security system that can be extended to servers and email via additional software products. It has the disadvantage associated with full encryption, namely a substantial processing burden added to the entire enterprise. It has the advantage that it integrates with industry leading Operating System/Personal Computer (“OS/PC”) security features such as Microsoft (“MS”) Windows Vista™ and Win7 BitLocker™ drive encryption or Lenovo ThinkVantage™ security. Sophos also has secure storage, exchange and recovery of encrypted data across mixed device and operating system environments through superior key management. Sophos offers SafeGuard PrivateCrypto™ functionality, which allows secure file and email attachment exchange with company user groups without requiring additional passwords.
While the Sophos suite of security features is the industry leading package, it has significant overhead in terms of the time required to load the software, encrypt the files, and manage all of the end points. It is not easily extensible to Service-Oriented Archectures (“SOA”) and the emerging standards there. It is designed more for external threat management (enterprise penetration and malware introduction) and device loss than it is for a coordinated, secure, policy-based communications environment application with mixed media and the full gamut of collaboration mechanisms. It also falls short of a full enterprise security application by not covering all forms of voice and video, social networks, blogs/microblogs, and other non email-based communications. Therefore, while it is a powerful suite of products, it does not provide a system that is secure when all communications media, modalities and architectures are fully considered. Finally, it does not integrate with existing document control systems and voice encryption systems.
Real time and packet-based voice communications security systems are also known. They require either proprietary hardware or software installation. Some are half-duplex and others are full duplex. They can apply to wire line Public Switch Telephone Network (“PSTN”), to wireless PSTN, or radio-based standards. Some apply to real time (Time Division Multiplexing (“TDM”) or other modulation schemes), while others apply to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and other non-real time voice. None of the publicly available systems audit and track such communication sessions or positively authenticate all parties in a complex real time session, such as a conference call with multiple locations and multiple parties at each location. No known voice encryption system coordinates with other security products to enforce overall communications security.
Service-oriented architecture (“SOA”) allow different ways to develop applications by combining services. The main premise of SOA is to erase application boundaries and technology differences. As applications are opened up, however, security becomes an issue. Traditionally, security models have been hardcoded into applications, and, when the capabilities of an application are opened up for use by other applications, the security models built into each application may not be good enough. Several emerging technologies and standards attempt to address different aspects of the problem of security in SOA. Standards such as Web Service Security (“WS-Security”), Security Assertion Markup Language (“SAML”), Web Service Trust (“WS-Trust”), Web ServiceSecureConversation and Web Service SecurityPolicy focus on the security and identity management aspects of SOA implementations that use web services. Technologies such as the Virtual Organization in Grid Computing, Application-oriented networking (“AON”) and extensible markup language (“XML”) gateways address the problem of SOA security in the larger context as well.
XML Gateways are hardware or software-based solutions for enforcing identity and security for Simple Object Access Protocol (“SOAP”), XML, and Representation State Transfer (“REST”) based web services, usually at the network perimeter. An XML gateway is a dedicated application, which allows for a more centralized approach to security and identity enforcement similar to how a protocol firewall is deployed at the perimeter of a network for centralized access control at the connection and port levels.
XML Gateway SOA Security features include Private Key Infrastructure (“PKI”), Digital Signature, Encryption, XML Schema Validation, Antivirus, and Pattern Recognition. Regulatory certification for XML gateway security features are provided by Federal Information Processing Standard (“FIPS”) and Department of Defense (“DoD”). While issues specific to SOA security are being considered and proposed as standards, there is no proposal for integration of such protocols and standards into the overall fabric of communications security or rationalizing the differences required of SOA when one considers the full gamut of media, mode, venue and the like.
When one considers the security implications of advanced communications and collaboration paradigms such as Google Wave™, the overall security problem becomes even more complex. The reason for this is that Wave users can attach documents where some may be protected and others are not. All such attachments are made available to the members of the Wave. Google Wave enforces security via an invite or participatory paradigm where the act of adding a party to a Wave or Wavelet authorizes that party to have access to, and contribute to, the contents therein. By nature of an invite or participatory security system, one creates disconnects with other security systems that are administrative or control-based. In addition, Google Wave provides little protection against the participants not adhering to enterprise or other organizational security guidelines. As a result, Google Wave presents another disjointed and incompatible security system that is not under current centralized control.